libsoc_wikifandomcom-20200214-history
State (Polity)
States or 'Governments '''are entities composed of a hierarchical bureaucracy that exist to dominate society by claiming a monopoly on legal violence over a clearly defined geographical area. According to libertarian socialists, states are defined by the anti-democratic nature, excluding most people from making decisions about how society, either explicitly undemocratic regimes (ie dictatorships) or maintain a facade of democracy (through elections) that fail by inertia and complex legal bureaucracy (representative democracy). States represent the most obvious and violent form of social hierarchy in the world today, and their dissolution is a necessary part of the project for human freedom. History The ultimate 'origin' of the state is still largely a mystery in politics, the proposed theories of where states come from are listed below. Primary State Formation ''Primary States are states that developed in stateless societies that had no contact with other states. Neolithic Revolution Many theorists argue that the Neolithic Revolution led to the rise of states, as the use of agriculture enabled for much more production of food per person, this meant that people could specialise in tasks other than gathering food, and the control of food production and distribution ensured that a society based on class emerged, and that the state emerged to enforce class society. Others are critical of this theory, pointing out that many agricultural societies did not develop states (some even remained strongly non-hierarchical) such as Highland New Guinea, Aboriginal Australia or the Haudenosaunee. Urbanisation Some have argued that as people began to migrate from the countryside into cities to be closer to others for protection and to access greater food sources from agriculture. The result of this is a large population that requires urban planning and military defense, only possible through the collective agreement to create a state. This theory has been strongly criticised as it fails to offer exact dates and archeological evidence for its claim, and there first urban environments (Catal Huyuk and Cayonu Tepesi) have no evidence of a state, and the largest urban environments during the formation of states (Indus River Valley and Minoan Crete) have no evidence of a state. Secondary State Formation Secondary States refer to states developed, aided or influenced by an already existing state over a stateless population. Tertiary State Formation Tertiary States refers to states created by direct intervention and administration by a fully formed state, in order to restore state power to previously statist populations in which state authority had been weakened or destroyed, or to impose its authority on a population that had previously resisted full integration under a state. Post-State Formation Post-State Society refers to societies consisting of people who once lived in a state and faced injustice, soon leaving the state to form their own, non-state communities that develop their own unique culture. Examples include Zomia. Justifications Various ideologies across the political spectrum have attempted to justify the state, and collectively these are known as statism. Divine Right of Kings Many early states often claimed legitimacy by appealing to religious theories, claiming that god had granted them (the ruling class) the right and duty to rule over populations. This idea is also called a theocracy. Theocracies largely collapsed with the Enlightenment and rise of secular ideals, although theocratic ideals still guide the states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Vatican City and parts of Israel and the USA. Defense of Revolution Some states (notably authoritarian socialist ones) have claimed their legitimacy by stating that a state is a necessity for defending the gains of a revolution from the forces of outside counter-revolution. Critics put forth the hydra hypothesis, that statism and hierarchy make it easier for counter-revolution to succeed, and that decentralised insurgencies against oppression can last far longer. Progressive Statism Progressive Statists argue that humanity has a natural tendency to be bigoted and unequal, and that the state can step in as a progressive agent to alleviate poverty and enforce equality, thus making people's lives better. This is generally the view of liberals and social democrats. Critics counter that the state frequently aids in the creation of artificial poverty and bigotry, inventing and violently enforcing arbitrary concepts of gender, race and class as well as destroying the commons, attacking squats, attacking trade unions and privatising key public services, all organisations that clearly help people escape starvation. Anti-Statist progressives (like libertarian socialists) argue that the state only grants these small concessions to prevent greater unrest (that might threaten the existence of the state) or to accumulate more power and wealth (ie funding universal healthcare because healthier citizens are more economically productive) and then exploits the giving of these concessions as a propaganda technique. Social Contract Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Critics of the social contract argue that you cannot give tactic consent, and that if you do not co-operative with state demands (ie break a law, stop paying taxes, avoid conscription) the state will coerce you. This argues that the state is not a legitimate entity, but a very successful gang. Will to Power Will to Power arguments believe that states are more or less gangs, and that's okay. Whoever can take power is justified in holding it. This view is hard to argue against since it is nihilistic, and nihilists rarely listen to ethics. No Justification Some have argued that no ethical justification for the state exists, usually known as philosophical anarchists, and the state invents stories to justify its own existence, in the words of Peter Gelderloos: Religion, history, citizenship, nationality, and identity as we know it all train us to be incapable of imagining our lives outside of state authority. All of us grow up believing that the State is an inevitable and universal evolution for humankind that improved the quality of our lives; only later are we given access to the information that conflicts with this narrative, once it already constitutes our fundamental worldview and sense of self. We grow up lacking information about contemporary or historical stateless peoples. The vast majority never surpass this ignorance. States and their leaders are fed to us as the protagonists of history, and when the stateless cannot be symbolically suppressed as primitive, savage, obsolescent, ignorant, evil, or terrorist, they are relegated to the shadowy backdrop of a stage the State clearly commands. Peter Gelderloos (2017) - Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation: Zomia: A Topography of Positionality List of States See: List of States Notable Theorists Pro-State * Plato * Thomas Hobbes Anti-State * Fredy Perlmen * James C. Scott * Peter Gelderloos * Peter Kropotkin * Pierre Clastres References Category:States Category:Concepts Category:Libertarian Socialist Wiki Category:Statism